ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
INVICTUS II: comparison of disc diffusion and broth microdilution methods for susceptibility testing of ceftolozane/tazobactam and five comparator agents against a subset of INVICTUS I
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A subset of clinical Methods: Overall, 159 non-cystic fibrosis isolates were chosen from INVICTUS I that had the smallest zone diameters from disc testing to ceftolozane/tazobactam, including isolates that were close to the breakpoints. The isolates were tested across 14 centres in the UK. Susceptibility results were interpreted using EUCAST 2026 criteria. Results: Discrepancy analysis showed combined error rates (very major and major errors) highest for ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime and piperacillin/tazobactam (15.7%, 14.5% and 12.6%, respectively); when adjusted to remove isolates close to the breakpoint for ceftolozane/tazobactam and piperacillin/tazobactam there were still remarkably high error rates (10.6% and 7.2%, respectively). Essential agreement and bias analysis were not performed as MICs were being compared with zone diameters. Discussion: Our findings highlight substantial challenges in performing and interpreting susceptibility testing for these two important antipseudomonal β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitors, which are commonly employed as either first-line empirical therapy (piperacillin/tazobactam) or for serious and MDR infection (ceftolozane/tazobactam). A review of disc testing for these agents may be warranted, and diagnostic laboratories may wish to review the technical limitations and put in place mitigating measures.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.